Fast food chain Chick-fil-A fights a kale lover from Vermont for rights to an ad campaign.

Sometimes I get confused and grab a big fat handful of family-farmed kale when what I really want is a fried chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A. It’s disappointing every time.

The lawyers for the nation’s second largest fast food chicken chain, Chick-fil-A, understand what I’m talking about. That’s why Chick-fil-A is suing Bo Muller-Moore, a Vermont-based folk artist who earns a living working as a foster parent for an adult with special needs, because he has been printing the phrase “Eat More Kale” on t-shirts and bumper stickers since 2000. Chick-fil-A’s argument is that those words dilute its brand and might be too easily confused with its ad campaign – which began in 1995 – featuring cows using the phrase “Eat Mor Chikn.”

Here’s how the beef started. A friend of Muller-Moore’s grows kale and asked him to make three t-shirts for his family and paid him $10 for each top. The shirts gained some popularity around town and now Muller-Moore sells them on his website, along with other products with the phrase.

Chick-fil-A sent a cease-and-desist letter in 2006, but backed down when Muller-Moore fought back. But, he re-ruffled the feathers recently when he applied for a federal trademark to protect his business name.

Muller-Moore hasn’t confirmed that his slogan was inspired by the cow campaign, but given the timeline, there’s a case to be made that his pro-kale merch is a play on the chicken franchise’s slogan. But the question is: Why does a giant corporation like Chick-fil-A care? And if this is lawsuit worthy, why aren’t the Got Milk? people suing everyone? (An aside: I wish they would.)

First, there’s the fair concern of brand identity. Imagine if Reebok’s new catch phrase were “I just did that.” Yet, we have to scratch our heads and ask how could Chick-fil-A be threatened by a do-gooding kale lover from Vermont?

Second, there’s the publicity. Chick-fil-A’s suit has brought more attention and traffic to eatmorekale.com than Muller-Moore likely ever would have gotten on his own or from people typing “eat more” into Google. For the most part, the company is being criticized for stepping on the little guy (insert David and Goliath reference here). But, Chick-fil-A is in the headlines. And the cow campaign is back in the forefront at a time when the chain is in expansion mode. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Protecting creative work is important. But this is just corporate bullying.

Sadly, reports The Atlantic, history is on the side of the bully. Chick-Fil-A has already succeeded in protecting the “Eat More” tagline more than 30 times, according to a letter sent to Muller-Moore. At the moment, this battle is being fought in the court of public opinion: The internet. If you’d like to stand up for the little guy, sign the petition on change.org and maybe skip the trip to Chick-fil-A.

The post Kale Becomes Corporate Coop Food For Chick-Fil-A appeared first on EcoSalon.

EcoSalon celebrates its 5,555th post with something groundbreaking like this really weird 5,556th post.

This week marked our 5,555th post and at first, we thought we should run for cover when all those 5’s lined up. After all, freaky things happen when the shapely number rears its big, flat head: in Egyptian mythology people get beaten to a pulp, cylons in Battlestar Galactica get meaner than hell and let’s not forget the satanic pentagram in all its five pointedness.

To celebrate this major milestone, we decided to pull the strangest articles out from the woodworks that we could find. Here are some goodies we hope will make you keep reading EcoSalon until the end of the world happens on our 6,666th post.

This week we got to learn about a very sacred space in a woman’s drawer, the low income pantie housing section, where dreams and romance basically die and tragic revelations about self-worth emerge. In The Psychology of a Woman’s Underwear, we go to that comedic space and listen to the tale of our new writer Jane F. King-Doe.

What do chickens and Jesus have in common? Religion. And according to one eco-fashion blogger who was completely incensed by our article Jesus, Enough With The Chicken, we got a Letter to the Editor from her stating our stance on fast food chain Chick Fil-A was not only wrong, it was just pure blasphemy.

We can totally appreciate the work that PETA does to protect animals but some of their work borders lunacy. In 5 More Utterly Outrageous PETA Stunts, writer Mike Sowden documents PETA’s denial that fish exist, tries to wrap his brain around how dressing up like the KKK helps prevent dog breeding and wrings his hands over targeting children with profusely bleeding cows via video games.

Sexy, sexy, sexy, that’s what garlic is, and cardamom and of course just-out-of-the-oven steaming pumpkin seeds. They are so spicy sexy they can actually get your orgasmic motor running and in Orgasmic Organics: 20 Tasty Aphrodisiacs To Put Sizzle In Your Sex Life we gobble up all the information we can get before we set out to start our (cough) eco-friendly weekends.

If we can’t wear mink we should turn to something furry still like, say…nutria! New Orleans based Righteous Fur says this “colossal waste” of fur from rodents causing major coastal erosion should be recycled into fun hats, bags and other nutria-fur-based accessories. Maybe just clicking over to Guilt Free Fur to see the pictures will be enough for you to realize, fur, any way you slice it is just so, dead.

The post The Friday 5,555 Edition appeared first on EcoSalon.

Dear Editor,

My name is Leslie Hicks, and as a blogger in the eco-friendly sphere, I have read and enjoyed many of your columns, most recently the piece on AT&T vs. Verizon and their respective environmentally-conscious efforts. Most of the time, I find your columns to be interesting, informative, and I reference them often in my own tweets (@LeslieJHicks). Because I do read your posts often, I felt, as a reader, both qualified and compelled to inform you that the article by Libby Lowe, titled “Jesus, Enough with the Chicken,” is not only inaccurate in several respects, it’s embarrassingly misrepresentative, and reads more as a tantrum, which I’m sure was not Ms. Lowe’s goal.

Firstly, the title of the piece is not only blasphemous in a thoughtless effort to employ a pun, it’s insensitive. I don’t know how much of the Bible or how much about Christianity any of you have actually read with an open mind or with a desire to truly understand what you’re attacking so carelessly, so I’ll explain exactly what I mean. Blasphemy is defined as “1 a: the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, b: the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2: irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable,” which is exactly what your title does (except for claiming attributes of deity). In case you’re unaware of why exactly invoking Jesus’s name in such a way is blasphemous, and thus, offensive, allow me to direct you to the place in the Bible which clearly spells it out—this site lists the Exodus 20:7 passage in many different translations, which is sure to get the point across. You may want to pay strict attention to the NIV, The Living Bible, and Revised Berkeley translations. The sentiment is paralleled in the New Testament as well (Ephesians 4:29, Colossians 4:6). At the very least, the piece’s title is unfortunately negligent of professionalism, and at worst, blatantly disrespectful to a figure Christians recognize as Lord. Do you want to take that stance as a publication?

A second issue I take with this article is that it grossly misrepresents Christian values. For one thing, the term “Christian values” links to another obviously slanted article on a religiously-themed amusement park, as if to conveniently, albeit ignorantly, sum up Christian values in that post. Could someone please do me the favor of pointing out one Christian value in that article (and I don’t mean what you think or have heard from anti-Christian, misinformed activists are Christian values, I mean values that actually exist, substantiated by Biblical evidence)? Also, no one is “hiding” behind Christian values to fuel “bigotry,” sorry. In fact, most Christians, Christians who adhere to the principles and commands outlined in the New Testament, (as most educated Biblical scholars know to be the standard by which we’re to live our lives, not the Old Testament, which is present and still useful for prophetic examples, for historical records, and useful accounts of actions), will not shy from telling anyone that being homosexual is an abomination (also repeated in the New Testament, not just in Leviticus, as some confused reader argued in a comment).

Since true Christian values appear to be unknown or disregarded by your writers, I’m happy to share some that apply to this column/social conflict: God created us male and female to be husband and wife—Genesis 2: 18-24, Matthew 19: 4-5; engaging in homosexuality is an abomination and gross repudiation of God’s law—Romans 1: 18-32, 1 Timothy 1: 5-11; homosexuality is a sin, yet can be forgiven like any other—Romans 3:23, Acts 26: 17-18; Christians are to love all people (John 13:34-35, Romans 13:8) but to not take part in or support sin (Ephesians 5:11, 1 Timothy 5:22); God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but will not tolerate sinful behavior (see Romans passage). True Christians, on the basis of Biblical doctrine, do not seek to dehumanize or mistreat homosexuals—we love them as fellow human beings, and will be the first to agree that bullying is never acceptable. However, a belief system is not synonymous with bullying. We simply do not accept a homosexual relationship as legitimate or recognizable on the level of marriage. As long as you’re entitled to support same-sex marriage, we’re entitled not to. A truly non-bigoted organization cannot argue that, especially if the organization it opposes is a privately-owned company with the same rights to religious freedom and freedom of speech. Not agreeing with the company’s mission statement is one thing—maligning that company as “bigoted” is entirely another.

Of course, I cannot speak for every individual that claims to be a Christian, I can only speak for myself and for what the Bible says or logically implies. I certainly do not condone each and every group or organization that claims to be Christian or to be upholding Christian values—indeed, some are indisputably racists, child molesters, bigamists, etc. However, an honest and critical thinker will hesitate to apply the word “Christian” to any that eschew Biblical doctrine but instead construct their own religion and ordinances.

I’m fully aware that very few people actually consider the Bible to be a true, reliable, and revelatory guide for living, but rather regard it as a simple collection of stories. You’re entitled, as free agents, to believe whatever validates and serves you the best—and, I’m sure, you do. However, it’s not just the Bible that says homosexuality is unnatural—science refutes many of the propagandist claims for its inherent nature and inevitable expression. Of course, the strongly suggestive lack of evidence for genetic inheritance of homosexuality has been largely ignored by the homosexual and advocating community. Please also note in the above article the mention of the inaccurate compound word “homophobia,” which, intended to describe one who is discriminatorily averse to the homosexual lifestyle, literally means an irrational fear of homosexuals, which is not the same as the lack of acceptance based on principle, and is likely nonexistent entirely.

Homophobia is not the only misnomer being employed among the homosexual-rights activist community. So too is “bigot” and “bigotry,” which is specifically used by your own Libby Lowe (and in your publication’s flurry of tweets as well). She describes bigotry as a deplorable mindset against the homosexual community. However, a cursory search of the etymology of the word “bigot” clearly reveals that the word was initially used as a snub of religion by the French. Curiously, that original use and context would in fact put you and anyone else who expresses contempt for and intolerance of religious ideology (“we won’t coddle,” as your tweet says) in the line of fire for being actual bigots. Bigotry isn’t confined to Christianity, as you allege—it applies to anyone who is obstinately devoted to their own prejudices, beliefs, opinions, politics, etc., and intolerant of others’. You could be accused of the same mindset you blindly accuse Christians of. Plus, the earliest English use carried with it the connotation of a religious hypocrite, which also doesn’t apply here, since any sincere, practicing member of the Christian religion which condemns homosexuality is hardly a hypocrite—he or she is a strict adherent.  No one who reads and lives by the Bible can credibly also say that being a homosexual is perfectly acceptable.  Too, bigotry has also been historically applied to those who harbor prejudice against a certain creed or racial/ethnic group—and, since homosexuality is not a religion, race, nor is it inherent, it’s not on par with the preceding categories and thus is (conveniently) misused as a term for the strong conviction that homosexuality is wrong. And let’s not forget that prejudice means the uninformed, preconceived adverse opinion of someone or something. One would be hard pressed in light of another’s Biblical study and scientific knowledge to correctly say that anyone who is opposed to homosexuality is uninformed or ignorant.

The bottom line is Ms. Lowe and whoever else rallies behind her article are fundamentally wrong—the article’s claims are uninformed, unsubstantiated, and lack depth. And, it’s clear that this piece isn’t really about the food chain at all, but rather just another seized opportunity to picket for unquestioning acceptance of a lifestyle just because it’s allegedly widespread (homosexuals make up a very small percentage of the American population, contrary to pop culture portrayal, as the NHSLS found) and popular to do so. The folks who seem the most uncomfortable, actually, are Ms. Lowe and her enablers—uncomfortable with companies that exercise their religious freedom, which Ms. Lowe claims to like, yet…puzzlingly does not like when it allows those who are opposed to homosexuality to promote their beliefs. That’s ironically, inconsistently intolerant if you’re honest with yourselves.

In closing, I’d like to again state that I respect you as columnists, and I will likely continue to enjoy reading some of your articles. If you truly value your readership and are truly non-discriminatory as your attack on “discriminators” would imply you to be, I’m confident you’ll not only respect and honor my arguments, beliefs, and opinions, you’ll have the courage to publish them. Courage is, after all, part of having a heart, isn’t it?

Sincerely,
Leslie Hicks

From the author, Libby Lowe:

Leslie,

I appreciate that you took the time to share your views, but I think you missed the point of my piece. You say that I misrepresented Christian values. I wasn’t trying to represent Christian values, I was representing my values.

I am suspect of anyone stepping up to explain or represent the beliefs of an entire group – be it a religious, political or otherwise collection of like-minded (not single-minded) people – no matter how many quotes you have to try to support your points.

I’m not going to get into a debate with you about homosexuality in the bible or whether sexuality is genetic. I assume agreeing to disagree will be the result of any debate we might have, but I will say that being informed doesn’t get you off the hook. Your statements about homosexuality, no matter how you couch them in niceties about loving them as fellow human beings, make your position clear. Call it intolerance, call it bigotry, use whatever word you like, but homophobia is homophobia and it hurts people.

You say that it’s clear my story isn’t really about the food chain, but “rather another seized opportunity to picket for unquestioning acceptance of a lifestyle.” I say that your letter isn’t really about my story, but a seized opportunity to promote intolerance in a far
more transparent way than a little text on a sandwich wrapper.

Yes, I am uncomfortable with Chick-fil-A’s corporate belief system. But I do believe the organization has every right to put those beliefs out there. In fact, I am glad to know where they stand so that I can make an informed choice as a consumer.

Libby Lowe

From the editor:

Leslie,

The EcoSalon motto, “Have a heart,” does indeed stand for courage, including in the face of discrimination, which is why we would no sooner have a “heart” for homophobia than we would for pollution. Chick-Fil-A’s environmentally negligent fast food business model, coupled with the organization’s activism against civil rights, is a perfect example of the kind of unenlightened, unsustainable activity we find indefensible.

I must take issue with your interpretation of our motto, as if embracing a life lived from the heart – that is, bravely, generously and consciously – would cover all opinions and beliefs simply because they exist, regardless of their validity. EcoSalon is no more obligated to “honor” intolerance of an adult individual’s consenting habits in the bedroom than it would be to honor creationism as a debate, sexism as a precedent, or racism as mere prejudice.

While religious belief is a fundamental right and one we clearly support in this piece, there is simply nothing morally courageous about homophobia, however gently it is applied. Therefore, we appreciate you expressing your views, but remain unapologetic in our criticism.

The heart of EcoSalon beats for progress.

Sara Ost

Have something to say? Speak up! Letters to the editor can be sent to editor@ecosalon.com. Submission is no guarantee of publication. Letters may be copy edited for grammar and clarity.

Last month’s letter: Flowery Feminists

The post Letter to the Editor: To Parse, Perchance to Judge appeared first on EcoSalon.

Take five. Here’s an at-a-glance chance to reconnect with or catch top stories you might have missed this week at EcoSalon:

1. Mixed and very strong reactions to new writer Libby Lowe’s article, Jesus, Enough With The Chicken, highlighting the new Chick-fil-A location in Chicago. Should there be a separation of chicken and state? Are human rights involved when it comes to a simple chicken patty? Read and weigh in on this “heavy sandwich.”

2. Abigail Doan on trashion: Condoms and Candy Wrappers: And We Wonder Why Anna Wintour Won’t Green Vogue has us all asking whether creative reuse is fraying the lines of sustainable design and glorifying “less than marketable fashion.”

3. Fears over child bullying, kidnapping and standard-issue psychopaths preying on our children are challenged with senior editor Luanne Bradley’s piece, Are The Kids Alright In 2011? Not If You Buy Into The Hype. Bradley writes: “Was it really safer back then? If you buy into recent statistics, kids are actually as safe or safer now.”

4. Can you green me now? Have you ever thought about how sustainable your phone network is? Stephanie Rogers investigates in her Digg-topping article, Verizon Vs. AT&T: Who’s Greener (We Know Who Works Better). Want to know who wins? Click and see.

5. Sea sluts and plastic patches. Foreign correspondent Stiv Wilson is a self-proclaimed two-timer, but not for what you’re thinking. Reflections from a Two-Timer, a thoughtful conclusion to the exclusive 14-week series chronicling his sailing journey in the South Atlantic Gyre may be over, but you can catch the entire series here.

Above image helloturkeytoe

The post The Friday Five, Vol. 1 appeared first on EcoSalon.

Chicago is getting its very first Chick-fil-A in April and people are pretty close to losing their minds as the fast food giant expands across the Midwest. Chicago has enough problems with its collective weight (thanks, pizza), and Chick-fil-A’s staunch stance against gay marriage makes me queasy. The company also has this creepy statement of purpose: “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.”

That’s a heavy sandwich.

With apologies to my transplanted, salivating southern friends,  I know we’ve done you wrong with the weather and we sort of owe you one but we don’t need another fast food restaurant and we definitely don’t need to welcome a business that hides behind Christian values to fuel bigotry.

While I am a vegetarian, I’m not made of stone. The company’s Eat More Chikin campaign is super cute. And I get that people have fond, buttery childhood memories that include the popular sandwiches. But we’re not six, and fast food chicken sandwiches are terrible for both your body and the planet.

I’m not saying you have to shell out for Karyn’s Cooked every day, but there’s a Subway across the street from the new location, so if animal rights and environmentally conscious eating aren’t your things, please, think of your ass! We’re all smart enough to know that 920 calories for lunch (original sandwich, medium fries and medium sweet tea) is too many. Sure, you can order a salad, but you’re at Chick-fil-A. Who orders the salad?

Eating your politics isn’t for everyone and it’s easy to go overboard with the food thing (see the Portlandia episode featuring Colin, the chicken), but there are some companies with politics so against everything I believe in that I simply can’t give them my money. Remember back in the day when Domino’s founder Tom Monaghan started donating to Operation Rescue and a bunch of doctors who provided abortions were killed? Chick-fil-A is one of these companies for me.

The company is very open about their Christian roots, and I like religious freedom. It’s a private company with every right to be closed on Sundays and give people discounts for going to church or whatever. But Chick-fil-A’s charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation, loves to hate on gay marriage and has close ties to the National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute and “ex-gay” activists Alan Chambers and David Blankenhorn.

The Ruth Institute and the National Organization for Marriage’s line is that same-sex marriage destroys the fabric of society, and they’ve worked hard to pass legislation banning gay marriage or taking existing marriage equality rights away from same-sex couples. Chambers, of Exodus International, is a proponent of ex-gay therapy, which perpetuates the idea that there is something wrong with being gay – and after a year of highly-publicized teen suicides linked to bullying and homophobia, can’t we all agree that telling people there’s something wrong with them is a bad idea?

But will denying yourself the joy of Chick-fil-A make the world better for gay people? Across the country, college kids say it will and in Florida, Indiana and New York,  students have rallied to get the franchises kicked off campus. Change.org has a series of stories worth taking a look at but it’s too soon to say what will happen in Chicago. The Windy City Times is the best local source for news about the issue and has raised some good points. If there are gay and lesbian Chick-fil-A employees, none have complained of discrimination but that could be because there aren’t any. As the paper points out, the corporation openly favors married people and most of its locations are in states that do not recognize gay marriage, so potential gay and lesbian employees would appear to be automatically out of the running. Because Chicago’s human rights ordinance includes sexual orientation and gender identity, that could also be a key factor as the community decides whether to organize a boycott.

I know many of my butter-bun loving pals can’t wait for April and the chance for a little southern comfort, but organized or not, I’ll personally be boycotting Chick-fil-A.

Image: iheartmacaroni

The post Jesus, Enough With the Chicken appeared first on EcoSalon.